United Airways 175

I've posted a little over the years about some issues relating to the criticism of official government analysis pertaining to the events of 9/11. Let me reiterate that I am not interested in, nor do I endorse any theory which deals with the motives or identity of people that may have committed criminal acts that day. My interest is in examining the official government analysis for errors or inconsistencies, and calling for the analysis to be redone if necessary.

I want you guys to see this stuff because I think it's important.

Some time ago, the federal government released a data set consisting of position and velocity data for UA175, the second plane to impact the WTC complex on 9/11. This data represents values derived at 12s intervals by civilian and military radar, and shows the flight path of UA175 all the way to impact and destruction. According to this data, UA175 was traveling at 447 knots when it struck the south tower, even though this is well beyond design tolerance for sea level flight, and Boeing 767's that have approached these speeds at higher altitudes have disintegrated . In the following video, the radar data is matched with every known video recording of UA175's approach to the south tower, and it is shown that the data matches what was observed perfectly. You should also be able to see that the flight path described by the radar data represents an extremely complex and stressful maneuver for a plane flying (literally) over it's design tolerance for maximum speed.

The second video is much longer, but VERY interesting. It contains an interview with an instructor who asked the professional airline pilots in his recertification class to duplicate Marwan al-Shehhi's feat (crashing a jetliner into WTC1) on the much smaller and more maneuverable Boeing 737 being simulated for the class. Not one professional 737 pilot could hit either tower with any part of their plane at any velocity greater than landing speed (about 150 knots). Only the master instructor was able to hit the tower. These pilots all had logged 1000's of hours flying the 737, (and the instructor close to 10,000 hours). Al-Shehii had 10's of hours flying, and had never piloted a jet aircraft for a single hour. And yet the plane hit the building. As did the plane targeting the north tower.

Later in the video there is an interview with an experienced 767 pilot essentially scoffing at the notion that the observed flight path and maneuvers were accomplished using a 767 at all, much less one piloted by a rank amateur. Not only was the pilot in question experienced with the 767, but had literally captained UA175 previously himself. He calls what is described in the 9/11 commission report "impossible".

Again, I'm not interested in discussing why the events of 9/11 were carried out, only whether we have gotten a clean explanation from the commission, NTSB, NIST and the other agencies that have looked into this. As it stands, the idea that Marwan al-Shehhi flew UA175 at 447 knots into WTC1 is essentially discredited.

Here is the first video

Last edited by Matt Phillips; 1/28/2013 9:29pm at .

Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie

Summarizing: The plane that struck 9/11 was traveling at speeds that should have destroyed a stock Boeing 767, and would have rendered it, or even a much smaller and more maneuverable 737 virtually uncontrollable. Max cruising speed is intended for 35,000 ft, not sea level. Moreover, even pilots with 10 to 100 times al-Shehhi's recorded flight time could not duplicate his feat (hitting WTC1 at max cruising speed) even once in a 737 simulator. Precision maneuvering is much simpler in a simulator than in the actual plane. The task is simplified in a Boeing 737 which is more maneuverable than the larger 767. Al-Shehhi had no simulator time in either the 767 or even the 737, but did have time in simulators for the smaller 727. Al-Shehhi's had never flown an actual Boeing 767 before, nor had he flown an actual 737 or even a 727 under live conditions. The only reported fight hours for al-Shehhi are in small, single engine prop planes.

Al-Shehhi had only simulator training for the 727 and flew a real 767 at top speed, into WTC1. Professional 737 pilots couldn't duplicate this feat in a 737 simulator. Maximum cruising speed is intended for an altitude of 35,000 ft, not sea level where the plane becomes extremely difficult to control, and can disintegrate.

You'd have to conclude that the hypothesis that Marwan al-Shehhi piloted a 767 into WTC1 on 9/11/2001 is falsified.

Last edited by Matt Phillips; 1/29/2013 8:48am at .

Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie

His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

6,855

Posted On:1/29/2013 9:34am

2

Don't have time to watch the videos now so I only had a quick read through, and I am not a jet pilot. I have just a very small bit of flight experience (<100 hrs) in small planes. What jumped out at me though is the idea that the plane would be harder to maneuver at high speed. That seems weird. Typically a plane is more responsive at high speed because of the increased airflow over the control surfaces. Obviously, radical banking could cause a wing to come off at high speed, but it seems like making minor corrections to fly to a specific point would be easier. The slower you fly, the harder it is to maneuver. The controls get mushy and respond slowly because air is flowing over the wing slower. That's why landing is the hardest thing to learn. Just my quick observation.

Don't have time to watch the videos now so I only had a quick read through, and I am not a jet pilot. I have just a very small bit of flight experience (<100 hrs) in small planes. What jumped out at me though is the idea that the plane would be harder to maneuver at high speed. That seems weird. Typically a plane is more responsive at high speed because of the increased airflow over the control surfaces. Obviously, radical banking could cause a wing to come off at high speed, but it seems like making minor corrections to fly to a specific point would be easier. The slower you fly, the harder it is to maneuver. The controls get mushy and respond slowly because air is flowing over the wing slower. That's why landing is the hardest thing to learn. Just my quick observation.

One thing I'm sure of is that Vmo / Vne / Vmax is a guideline above which an aircraft may not operate safely - but may still fly. It's an aircraft-specific speed limit which should not be exceeded (without authorization: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...200.32&idno=14). In other words, it's a pilot directive, not a physical limit.

His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

6,855

Posted On:1/29/2013 9:59am

--

Originally Posted by submessenger

One thing I'm sure of is that Vmo / Vne / Vmax is a guideline above which an aircraft may not operate safely - but may still fly. It's an aircraft-specific speed limit which should not be exceeded (without authorization: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...200.32&idno=14). In other words, it's a pilot directive, not a physical limit.

Yeah, people do **** in airplanes they aren't supposed to do all the time. Usually by accident. Sometimes they die. Sometimes they live. Even with the manufacturer's published limitations there's probably some wiggle room. They probably err on the safe side. Also, two parts manufactured side by side probably still won't break at the exact same point.